Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2018-2019/3527

whether the service provided to the students for lodging along with food is a composite supply and whether supply of such service is eligible for exemption. And what is the rate of tax for the combination of services he provides, if it is not considered a
CASE:SARJ EDUCATIONAL CENTRE
Citation: GST-ARA-72/2018-19/B-165
ISSUE: whether the service provided to the students for lodging along with food is a composite supply and whether supply of such service is eligible for exemption. And what is the rate of tax for the combination of services he provides, if it is not considered a composite supply.
Brief Facts:  The applicant is the owner of a private boarding house and is providing services of lodging and food exclusively to the students of a secondary school. Applicant wants to seek a ruling on whether his service to the students for lodging along with food is a composite supply and whether supply of such service is eligible for exemption. The Applicant also wants to know what should be the rate of tax for the combination of services he provides, if it is not considered a composite supply.The Applicant, has entered into an MOU with St. Michael’s School under the management of Sunshine Educational Society, for providing boarding facility exclusively to the students of the said school. The boarding facility includes lodging, housekeeping, laundry, medical assistance and food.
The  Applicant refers to Circular No. 32/06/2018, dated 12-2-2018 of CBIC. It has clarified that accommodation service to students in a hostel having declared tariff below one thousand rupee per day is exempt under Sl. No. 14 of the Exemption Notification. Further reference to Sl. No. 66 of the Exemption Notification, and argues that his services to the boarders should also be considered exempt under that entry of the said notification.
Respondent’s Contention: Revenue states that it appears that the services provided by the applicant will fall under Composite Supply as defined under Section 2(30) of the GST Act. Revenue also points out that exemption under Sl. No. 14 of the Exemption Notification does not cover the service of providing food supplied by the applicant.
Reasoning of Judgement:  
1. Sl. No. 66 of the Exemption Notification is applicable to the services provided by or to an educational institution, as defined under clause 2(y) of the said notification. The Applicant is not an educational institution.
2. The bundle of services offered to the recipients, therefore, consists of both taxable and nontaxable supplies. It is also evident that although the services are offered in a bundle, they are not indivisible, and different considerations are paid for different packages of such services offered to the recipients, depending upon their requirement for lodging facility. For example, laundry service is not offered to the day boarders.
These are not, therefore, bundles of taxable supplies that are inseparable and supplied only in conjunction with one another in ordinary course of business. The services the Applicant supplies are not, therefore, composite supply, as defined under Section 2(30) of the GST Act.
3. Applicant is offering several individual services in two different combinations to the recipients, depending upon their need for lodging facility. Each of the recipients, however, is charged a consolidated amount for the combination of services he wants to enjoy. The combination of services is, therefore, offered as a mixed supply within the meaning of Section 2(74). In accordance with Section 8(b) of the GST Act it is stated that, “a mixed supply comprising two or more supplies shall be treated as a supply of that particular supply which attracts the highest rate of tax.” As has already been discussed, each of the combinations includes services taxable at 18% rate, which is the highest rate applicable to the services being offered vide Section 8(b) of the GST Act. Being mixed supply, value of the entire combination of services offered is taxable at 18% rate.
Decision: Applicant is offering several individual services in two different combinations to the recipients, depending upon their need for lodging facility. None of the combinations         of services being offered is a composite supply, as defined under Section 2(30) of the GST Act. They are mixed supplies within the meaning of Section 2(74) and taxable in accordance with Section 8(b) of the GST Act. Being mixed supply, value of the entire combination of services offered is taxable at the applicable rate.
Comment:
The issue involved in application involves two issues. First whether the applicant falls under the definition of Educational Institution in order to claim exemption. And the other being the type of supply of Service whether Composite or Mixed Supply and the applicable rate.
Let us see the definition of Educational educational Institution as per 2(y) of the Notification No. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dt 28th June 2017.
“(y) “educational institution” means an institution providing services by way of,-
(i) pre-school education and education up to higher secondary school or equivalent;
(ii) education as a part of a curriculum for obtaining a qualification recognised by any law for the time being in force;
(iii) education as a part of an approved vocational education course;”
The applicant doesn’t fall in the above definition. Further he doesn’t provide services to educational institution but he provides services to individual students.
The services provided by the applicant are divisible and can be taxable separately. So it doesn’t provide composite services. So , the AAR has passed the ruling in the favour of department saying the service as mixed supply and table at the rate of 18% o the basis of the above provisions.
 
 
Prepared by Kasif
 
Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com